• The UN has decided that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem
    42 replies, posted
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51198698]Why did 24 abstain? It seems a very weird issue to abstain on. I'm not the biggest fan of how the Palestine situation has gone down, but claiming that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem is ridiculous![/QUOTE] im guessing a lot of them are in asia and africa or south america and don't want to alienate either China or the US because of this, though i thought china might have stayed out of this themselves or voted against it because they're trying to reach out to israel
[QUOTE=elowin;51200223]Using the Muslim name for a place that has multiple name is not definitive proof of a Muslim bias. Whether you disagree with the resolution or not, and I'm not currently weighing either way, saying that this means they've "decided that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem" is purely sensationalist bullshit.[/QUOTE] which makes more sense, referring to the places as they were called first in the millennia old Torah and New Testament and which they are recognized as by two different major world religions or referring to the places by names used exclusively by muslims which no one else uses other than the muslims
[QUOTE=elowin;51200223]Using the Muslim name for a place that has multiple name is not definitive proof of a Muslim bias. Whether you disagree with the resolution or not, and I'm not currently weighing either way, saying that this means they've "decided that Jews have no connection to Jerusalem" is purely sensationalist bullshit.[/QUOTE] Read the quote again: [QUOTE]Reaffirms that the Mughrabi Ascent [B]is an integral and inseparable part of Al-AqṣaMosque[/B]/Al-Ḥaram Al-Sharif;[/QUOTE] It literally says that the Mughrabi Ascent is an integral part of the Al Aqsa Mosque and not the Jewish Temple. It denies all claim Jews or Israel have to a historical part of the old Jewish Temple upon which the Al Aqsa mosque was built.
this is literally actually wrong
Reading the [URL="http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002462/246215e.pdf"]actual draft document[/URL] linked in the OP's article, mentions nothing about the Temple Mount itself. It's focused on the Al-Aqsa Mosque primarily, which unfortunately sits on the Temple Mount but is a [I]distinctly[/I] Muslim historical building. The draft demands that Israel restore the former historic status of the mosque that was removed in September 2000 following the Intifada-related protests where hundreds were injured by Israeli police. It calls for the Jordanian [I]Awqaf[/I] - a Muslim ministry of historical holy sites across the entire Middle East - to regain "unimpeded administration" of the mosque. It's currently run by the [I]Jerusalem Islamic Waqf[/I], which directs [i]only[/i] the Muslim holy sites located [I]directly on the Haram esh-Sharif[/I] (aka the Temple Mount) and no others. This isn't UNESCO denying Israel's historical ties to the Temple Mount [i]at all[/i] and I'm not really sure where the article-writer got that from. It's about the Al-Aqsa Mosque primarily, and some other Muslim sites located on the Temple Mount region and elsewhere in Israel. It criticizes a lot of different actions of the Israeli government, from denying UNESCO Islamic Manuscript experts and historians access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, to the multiple violent conflicts that have taken place around the mosque against protesters - but it never says "this is a Muslim historical location and [I]not[/I] a Christian/Jewish one." There's literally nothing in the actual draft that [i]denies[/i] the Jewish/Christian relationship to the Temple Mount - all it is doing is affirming that the buildings [I]currently[/I] on the Temple Mount are of historical value to the Islamic faith, and insists that Israel stop impeding maintenance and restoration of those buildings. It's about the Israeli government impeding access to monuments and buildings of historical religious significance, with cited [I]evidence[/I] of events where access has been impeded. I might be missing something, but I can't find shit about it. It seems like the article-writer thinks they're mutually exclusive - they're not. The location is a historical religious holy site for [i]both[/i] religions - and while I'd prefer UNESCO demand a coalition organization between both sides to handle administration to remain more neutral, [I]nothing they've said denies the relevance of the Temple Mount to Judaism.[/I] [editline]14th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=ScumBunny;51201336]Read the quote again: It literally says that the Mughrabi Ascent is an integral part of the Al Aqsa Mosque and not the Jewish Temple. It denies all claim Jews or Israel have to a historical part of the old Jewish Temple upon which the Al Aqsa mosque was built.[/QUOTE] Where does it say "not the Jewish Temple?" It calls it an "integral and inseparable part" of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but it doesn't say that the Mughrabi Ascent [i]is not part of any Jewish tradition[/i]. Hell, the Waqf that administers the location had the Mughrabi Gate be the only entrance for non-Muslim visitors to the Temple Mount until the '04 collapse of the dirt path and the construction of the wooden access bridge in '07 - if anything, that shows recognition that it's a [I]shared[/I] religious site. Hell, the draft insists that Rachel's Tomb be recognized [i]also[/i] as a Muslim heritage site as the "Bilal bin Rabah Mosque," demanding that the [i]outright ban for Muslim worshipers[/i] at Rachel's Tomb be lifted. It specifically refers to the site using both the Jewish [i]and[/i] the Muslim names - I don't know how that could [i]possibly[/i] be considered trying to deny or remove the Jewish significance to the site. To me it looks like a demand for inclusivity, recognizing that Rachel's Tomb has Muslim historical religious significance as well. The draft is very politicized and I don't like how UNESCO is getting involved in the Gaza conflict and such, but the demands really don't seem to be about [i]denying[i] Jewish access to anything, but rather opening up Muslim access to religious sites that share historical religious significance among both religions. I [I]really[/I] can't see anything wrong with that.
Throughout all of human history the Jews are the people who got shit on the most, and despite all of the knowledge we have, are still being shat on.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51200634]which makes more sense, referring to the places as they were called first in the millennia old Torah and New Testament and which they are recognized as by two different major world religions or referring to the places by names used exclusively by muslims which no one else uses other than the muslims[/QUOTE] Either, it's just a name. Different people use different names for the same things, none of them are inherently more correct than the others.
Let's be frank about this; what goes around comes around. When British with their Balfour Declaration one-sidedly declare part of ANOTHER country as a property of a single race, surely you would have anticipate a similar attack will come from the other side? Because let's be honest; this is all it's about.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;51201511] The draft is very politicized and I don't like how UNESCO is getting involved in the Gaza conflict and such, but the demands really don't seem to be about [i]denying[i] Jewish access to anything, but rather opening up Muslim access to religious sites that share historical religious significance among both religions. I [I]really[/I] can't see anything wrong with that.[/QUOTE] The director general of UNESCO [URL="http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/1568"]disagrees with your interpretation[/URL]: [QUOTE]“The heritage of Jerusalem is indivisible, and each of its communities has a right to the explicit recognition of their history and relationship with the city. [B]To deny, conceal or erase any of the Jewish, Christian or Muslim traditions[/B] undermines the integrity of the site, and runs counter to the reasons that justified its inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage list.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]“The outstanding universal value of the City, and the reason why it was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list, lies in this synthesis, which is an appeal for dialogue, not confrontation. We have a collective responsibility to strengthen this cultural and religious coexistence, by the power of acts and also by the power of words. This requirement is stronger than ever, to bridge the divisions that harm the multi-faith character of the Old City. “[B]When these divisions carry over into UNESCO, an Organization dedicated to dialogue and peace, they prevent us from carrying out our mission[/B]. UNESCO's responsibility is to foster this spirit of tolerance and respect for history, and this is my absolute daily determination as Director-General, with all Member States. I am committed to this under all circumstances, because this is our raison d’être -- to recall that we are one single humanity and that tolerance is the only way forward in a world of diversity.”[/QUOTE] More from the BBC: [URL]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37653910[/URL] [QUOTE]While acknowledging the "importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its walls for the three monotheistic religions", the document refers to the sacred hilltop only by the name "al-Aqsa Mosque/al-Haram al-Sharif" (Noble Sanctuary). It is the location of two Biblical Jewish temples and is flanked by the Western Wall, venerated by Jews as part of the original supporting wall of the temple compound. Haram al-Sharif is also the place where Muslims believe the Prophet Muhammad ascended to Heaven, and is the third holiest site in Islam. The draft refers to the precinct in front of the wall as "al-Buraq Plaza 'Western Wall Plaza'" - placing single quote marks only around "Western Wall", giving the name as it is known to Jews less weight than the one by which it is known to Muslims.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It repeatedly denounced Israeli actions, including the use of force, imposition of restrictions on Muslim worshippers [B]and archaeological work[/B]. Israel regards such criticism as politically motivated.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]Unesco chief Irina Bokova criticised the draft resolution[/B], saying "different peoples worship the same places, sometimes under different names. The recognition, use of and respect for these names is paramount."[/QUOTE] Edit: Looks like this isn't the first time UNESCO chief Irina Bokova [URL="http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/statement_by_the_director_general_of_unesco_irina_bokova/"]criticizes these kinds of resolutions[/URL]: [QUOTE]Today, the Director-General expresses renewed deep concerns and, in this spirit, she has started broad consultations so as to encourage UNESCO Member States to pursue constructive dialogue in accordance with UNESCO’s mandate. [B]She deplores the recent proposals under discussion by the UNESCO Executive Board that could be seen to alter the status of the [URL="http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/148"]Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls[/URL][/B], inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list, and that could further incite tensions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The Director-General appeals to the UNESCO Executive Board to take decisions that do not further inflame tensions on the ground and that encourage respect for the sanctity of the Holy Sites. The protection of [B]cultural heritage should not be taken hostage[/B], as this undermines UNESCO’s mandate and efforts.[/QUOTE]
Israel froze all ties to UNESCO after this. [URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37653910"]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37653910[/URL] [QUOTE]Israel has frozen co-operation with the UN's cultural agency, accusing it of denying Judaism's connections to the religion's holiest sites. Its education minister said a Unesco draft decision concerning Jerusalem "denies history and encourages terror". It comes after the body approved a text which repeatedly used only the Islamic name for a hilltop complex which is also the holiest site in Judaism. Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett said Unesco was ignoring "thousands of years of Jewish ties to Jerusalem" and aiding "Islamist terror". Unesco chief Irina Bokova criticised the draft resolution, saying "different peoples worship the same places, sometimes under different names. The recognition, use of and respect for these names is paramount." However, Mr Bennett said Ms Bokova's statement was insufficient. "Words are important, but they are not a replacement to the actions of the organisation she heads," he said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a Facebook post that Unesco had become a "theatre of the absurd" in taking "another delusional decision". "To say that Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or that Egypt has no connection to the pyramids. By this absurd decision, Unesco has lost what little legitimacy it had left."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Omesh;51200010]No need to even read the source, 100% positive OIC is behind this. What's ~surprising is that Sweden and France would have gone along with it. This is pretty ludicrous just from a historic standpoint, but what can you expect. The people in charge probably can't decide who is higher on the oppression (I mean just general anti-semitism, not stuff with Gaza) ladder, everyone is insane.[/QUOTE] Sweden and France have large Muslim populations that are only going to grow larger in the coming decades, they're just trying to keep 'em happy with something like this.
[URL="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4866955,00.html"]http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4866955,00.html[/URL] [QUOTE]The UN Secretary-General-designate, António Guterres, distanced himself on Sunday from a recent UNESCO resolution which failed to acknowledge the ties between the Jewish people and the Temple Mount.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]"The Secretary-General reaffirms the importance of the Old City of Jerusalem and its Walls for the three monotheistic religions and stresses the importance of the religious and historical link of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian peoples to the holy site," said a statement read by the UN Spokesperson on behalf of Guterres. "The Al Aqsa Mosque/Al-Haram al-Sharif, the sacred shrine of Muslims, [B]is also the Har HaBayit—or Temple Mount—whose Western Wall is the holiest place in Judaism[/B], a few steps away from the Saint Sepulcher church and the Mount of Olives, which is revered by Christians," Guterres added. He noted that "[B]any perceived undertaking to repudiate the undeniable common reference for these sites does not serve the interests of peace and will only feed violence and radicalism[/B]" and called on all sides "to uphold the status quo in relation to the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem."[/QUOTE]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.